Incentives for Endangered Palm Collectors?

[Palmaholic John]

Does anyone know of any grants, funding, or tax exemptions for people growing palms on the endangered list? More than likely, there’s no such thing….but, I thought I’d ask around. Wouldn’t this be a nice incentive for people to do the world a favor and plant more rare and threatened species?

[quaman58]

John, one would think so, but alas, not that I've ever heard of. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true. I remember a Hawaiian grower ranting that the State's idea of conservation was to let seeds of the last (3, I think) remaining Pritchardia viscosas seeds fall to ground, esentially to be consumed by pigs. It was his opinion that regeneration of the species using this method was zero. On the other hand, look at the phenomenal regeneration of Carpoxylon as a species, due in large part to the economic interest that the nation of Vanuatu took in it. They didn't just put a fence around the few remaining palms. If they had, they'd still be unknown to the outside world.(& endangered)

Bret

[chris.oz]

Bret,you have it in a nutshell, one other case of note was Wodyetia, however the spread of the species worldwide was achieved, not by state sponsored seed distribution and sale, but by seed poachers [ as defined by the government].

The case of lord howe island nurseries is interesting. They still have quite a big business running, the climate is ideal, obviously, but there is such a huge seed resource available. The really interesting thing is, this is possible in spite of the fact that Howea is far from endangered.

Its usually about human demand for the nursery trade , not an inherent altruism to prevent species extinction

[Takil-Explorer]

Well its a good thing to grow in big number endangered species and sell them for a low price. Then nobody will take them from the wild anymore. And ex situ conservation as well.

If non native pigs eat the last seeds...

Alexander

[AggiePalms]

It is a real shame that unfortunately there doesn't seem to be funds for "insignificant" endangered species...after all, a palm is a palm, right? However, we can all educate people one on one to the need for such a program, hoping to engender support for preserving these species.

What I do is take a variety of endanged plants, including palms, to the university biology and environmental classes I teach, and let the students see real threatened/endangered plants, and discuss them...the problems they have naturally, the potential for pharmaceuticals, etc. A beautiful new red leaf on a Chambeyronia always elicits anger that such species could be allowed to go extinct, without collector care. Inevitably some answer yes to my question "would you be willing to grow one of these for the next 15 years, hoping we will develop a way to reintroduce them into the wild? One by one we can show the students the need; they may take the lead; maybe at least local programs could be funded.

Hope. We have to have hope.

[Tyrone]

In theory it's a good idea, but in practice a government will mess such a scheme up. How do you define "endangered" and who defines it. Quite often new species are discovered that are endangered but governments move so slowly they wouldn't update there "endangered" registers before the plant has actually become extinct. So you'd find you will be growing plants without funding because they don't recognise that particular species as valid or studied enough to put on the register and therefore provide the funding or whatever assistance they had in mind.

I personally feel it's better to do things yourself and enjoy the journey. In the meantime if you are growing rare and endangered plants get involved with botanic gardens etc and donate to them. You may not get your name up in lights, but it will feel good to have done it. That's my take on it anyway.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

The government view is that people growing edangered & rare plants are not the solution, nor deserving a grant, but often they're the real cause of the endangerment. For every example we can show where a species has been saved by worldwide distribution, they can show dozens more that have gone extinct from collection pressure (to supply people like you).

I tend to think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and wish beaurocracy was nimble enough to tell wich was better in every case (yeah I know).

[Zayin]

someone correct me if I'm needing educatin' but I suspect that if the government were to grant people growing endangered palms, that they would want to have some kind of controls over seed stock, so you would get sufficient genetic diversity and no hybrid forms etc. Still, it would be nice if the powers that be would turn to people like the people in this forum to grow endangered palms for them. I was reading about those rare Pritchardia Viscosa's and how I believe it was 38 plants were planted in a wild area on Kauai, within a few weeks all 38 plants were absconded. I'm telling you right now that if I was in charge of caring for 38 Pritchardia Viscosa's, i'd be sitting there with a pea shooter and an angry poodle making sure they didn't go anywhere!

[Tyrone]

The government view is that people growing edangered & rare plants are not the solution, nor deserving a grant, but often they're the real cause of the endangerment. For every example we can show where a species has been saved by worldwide distribution, they can show dozens more that have gone extinct from collection pressure (to supply people like you).

I tend to think the truth is somewhere in the middle, and wish beaurocracy was nimble enough to tell wich was better in every case (yeah I know).

I think the biggest cause of extinctions on the planet is actually habitat destruction. This is one thing that governments do have the power to fix, yet in the main choose not too. I do agree though that if a plant is on the brink of extinction due to habitat destruction, the pressure put on it by collectors who have little scruples can come in, take all the seed, and become the feather that broke the camels back. But they're generally not the reason why the plant became endangered in the first place. This is a complex issue and I don't believe we'll fix it unfortunately.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

...biggest cause of extinctions on the planet is actually habitat destruction.

collectors... generally not the reason why the plant became endangered

The first part I believe is true Tyrone, but perhaps not so relevant to the discussion above. While habitat loss will surely get it's licks in one way or the other, we looking at the question of 'yes monetary support for rare plant collectors to help propogate rare species' or 'no, rare plant collectors have a negative overall effect on endangered species'. Which do you think is true?

I don't know though that it's fair to trivialize the negative impact of collectors. I have a past in the orchid world, where species after rare species were permanently lost due to overcollection (not just habitat destruction). Here is one interesting example in the palm world I was just reading about today (from here) of Pritchardia viscosa. Here he's speaking about one of the only four remaining wild trees left in the world:

At least one of the remaining mature trees has been damaged by spiked boots used either by a botanist or seed collector to scale the tree. In mid-1996, a young plant and seeds from mature Pritchardia viscosa plants were removed from the only known location of this species. Because of this past activity, it is reasonable to assume that these plants are threatened by over-collection and vandalism (A. Kyono, pers. comm. 2000; C. Koga, in litt. 1999).

[LilikoiLee]

It is a real shame that unfortunately there doesn't seem to be funds for "insignificant" endangered species...after all, a palm is a palm, right? However, we can all educate people one on one to the need for such a program, hoping to engender support for preserving these species.

What I do is take a variety of endanged plants, including palms, to the university biology and environmental classes I teach, and let the students see real threatened/endangered plants, and discuss them...the problems they have naturally, the potential for pharmaceuticals, etc. A beautiful new red leaf on a Chambeyronia always elicits anger that such species could be allowed to go extinct, without collector care. Inevitably some answer yes to my question "would you be willing to grow one of these for the next 15 years, hoping we will develop a way to reintroduce them into the wild? One by one we can show the students the need; they may take the lead; maybe at least local programs could be funded.

Hope. We have to have hope.

We are new to palms and were shocked to find out that Chamberyoneia were endangered. They are really 'big' here on the Big Island. With nine (different varieties) I guess we're doing our part, even if in a small way.

[chris.oz]

The greatest threat to a whole range of palms is human activity in general,

whether its collectors cutting leaves off chamaedorea as Xate for a Palm Sunday church service in far off Vermont,

a burgeoning population on Madagascar cutting down palms for the hearts, or crazy people cutting down 200 year old Jubaea for sap

or just the shear weight of humanity clearing rainforest.

However one of the examples of how incredibly selfish people are and how distorted is their thinking, relates to the critically endangered Spix Macaw.

Apparently some owners in New York are unwilling to participate in a breeding program, because it would reduce the resale value of their birds !

Can you believe this !!!!

[chris.oz]

Xateros out of control !!

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2009/04/palm-sunday-crosses.html

Goodbye Chamaedorea ernesti augustii in the wild.

[Tyrone]

...biggest cause of extinctions on the planet is actually habitat destruction.

collectors... generally not the reason why the plant became endangered

The first part I believe is true Tyrone, but perhaps not so relevant to the discussion above. While habitat loss will surely get it's licks in one way or the other, we looking at the question of 'yes monetary support for rare plant collectors to help propogate rare species' or 'no, rare plant collectors have a negative overall effect on endangered species'. Which do you think is true?

I don't know though that it's fair to trivialize the negative impact of collectors. I have a past in the orchid world, where species after rare species were permanently lost due to overcollection (not just habitat destruction). Here is one interesting example in the palm world I was just reading about today (from here) of Pritchardia viscosa. Here he's speaking about one of the only four remaining wild trees left in the world:

At least one of the remaining mature trees has been damaged by spiked boots used either by a botanist or seed collector to scale the tree. In mid-1996, a young plant and seeds from mature Pritchardia viscosa plants were removed from the only known location of this species. Because of this past activity, it is reasonable to assume that these plants are threatened by over-collection and vandalism (A. Kyono, pers. comm. 2000; C. Koga, in litt. 1999).

Correct me if I'm wrong but the only known wild population of P viscosa is on private property and the owner does not want anything to do with conservation efforts. Why can this one land owner hold the future prospects of this species in his hands? The worlds biology belongs to the entire world. Why hasn't the government reclaimed that part of his land if he won't cooperate with conservation efforts.

I know this is a pointless discussion, but if you look all over the world you'll see botanic gardens with plants and palms that no longer exist in the wild because the land they inhabitated is now built on, or mined on, or cut down. Most of the eastern coastal rainforest on Madagascar simply doesn't exist anymore. I'm not proclaiming wholesale uncontrolled seed and plant collecting in the name of conservation, but rare plant collectors should not be demonised as planet wreckers. I believe most plant collectors have a conscience and are conservationists at heart. My thoughts are that if an area is going to be deforested, as terrible as that is, it would be better than nothing to have specimens grown from that future deforested area, than for that genetic material to be lost totally. I do not believe that rare plant collectors are having a negative overall effect on endangered species. Any government that is using that line of defence is just trying to shift it's moral responsibility by propagating a falsehood.

A case in point. In Western Australia you can not go into the wild and pick wildflowers, no matter how small. In fact you can't even remove a piece of wood to put in your reptile terrarium for example. But the government can build a bus station on one of the last known areas for a really rare orchid that can't survive disturbance or ever be transplanted or grown in cultivation.

This is a complex issue and yes there have been many times of people pillaging wild populations of genetic material, but habitat destruction makes this pail into insignificance.

Best regards

Tyrone

[peachy]

Tyrone, recently I was horrified to see the local golf course being carved up into a housing estate .... like we need more of those when the infrastructure cant cope with the existing population. The golf course was the last remaining koala habitat in the region and yet there has been not a single word about it mentioned in the media. My own place has some very rare frog species and is a haven for the native parrots and wrens but I know only too well that the day after I move out (or more likely am carried out) of here that the bulldozers wont be able to start quickly enough to flatten my years of work and to hades with the wildlife, in order to put up more ugly villa units. There's absolutely no incentive for people to try and preserve anything worthwhile unless its some ugly old building that should have been demolished years ago. Brisbane town hall being a perfect example. During the recent years of drought I applied for an exemption on the watering ban because of the rare plants and the wildlife and was quite rudely refused, not that it stopped me from doing it. As long as people keep quiet and allow the destruction of habitats then nature will never get the respect it deserves.

Peachy

[Gbarce]

I read a book called the Orchid hunters and it points out a flaw in the way CITES treats endangered plants making it illegal to transport not just live plants but even plant parts--including the seeds. In the book, they say that when CITES rules were being formulated the main concentration was on the protection of animals and right before formalizing the document they decided to include plants as well. Problem was they didn't really think things through for the rules on plants.

Its pretty logical to make make it illegal to trade parts of an endangered animals-- the tiger would probably die if you cut off its penis and so would a bear if you take off its paws, but its not that necessarily the case for plants. The seeds in particular are dispersed by plants anyway so the plant isn't really harmed by taking them. The survival rate of seeds in the wild is also very low so most of them are actually wasted if left to fend for themselves. If done properly collecting seeds from the wild and growing them commecrially solves the problem with the poaching demand coming from "evil plant collectors". This could also be seen as a means of protecting the plant species for repopulating wild territories.

If only policy makers see these dynamics involved in the horticultural world maybe the policies could be change.

And I think that its correct to say that a far greater threat to many plants species is the destruction of natural habitats and thats a far bigger problem to solve.

I am hoping that governments can look at plant collectors and horticultural companies a possible ally in preservation.

[Tom Hulse]

This is a complex issue and yes there have been many times of people pillaging wild populations of genetic material, but habitat destruction makes this pail into insignificance.

There is no question habitat destruction is bad, but I propose you are arguing at windmills where no one is disagreeing with you. The only question is 'is it relevant'? If we were having a discussion of, say, 'identity theft is good or bad?', and you added: 'Murder is much worse than identity theft; it makes identity theft pale in comparison'; would that be a reasonable argument in favor of identity theft?

So too, arguing that collection has "insignifigance" because you can point out something worse is also unreasonable. Collection stands on it's own as to whether it is always good for species, and habit destruction is separate, and only points out how important it is to get the collection issue right, and not make assumptions that could possibly make it worse.

Let me first say that I agree 100% that some species are saved by rare plant collectors, but I certainly think that isn't the only story out there, and the government's viewpoint is perhaps not as crazy as it may seem.

Tyrone, in your "case in point", could you be specific, which species was that? Would you say that was an example where collectors have succeeded in saving the species or they have failed? Didn't you say that particular species can't "ever be grown in cultivation"? So should I go get my piece to bring home or should I leave plant material on site for it to have a very slim, but still best possible chance of survival?

In my Pritchardia viscosa example there was a thread here on Palmtalk where a viscosa mother plant was from wild collected seeds (I hope not the ones I described above where one of the last plants was severely damaged by a collector), and this mother plant was positively identified later by a well respected palm grower who had spent time at the last stand of viscosa in the wild. However the seedlings from this palm were identified as not viscosa, but unknown. So we have a known mother, unknown progeny, and the mother was kept in a private collection, where we could perhaps expect other species of Pritchardia to occur near. Who was the father? What guarantee is there that these are not polluted hybrids? Yet they are being sold and widely distributed (right here on Palmtalk!) as pure Pritchardia viscosa. The purity of the species could soon be truly lost forever partly because of dilution by collectors. It may be true the other way too, but it really doesn't matter because we can't know for sure. A private collection in a non-natural environment is NO guarantee agianst hybrid pollution for many species.

How could we guarantee against hybrid pollution of Pritchardia seedlings? Put them in totally isolated valleys away from other related species, and with exact native weather & cultural conditions so they always come in to flower at the proper times. There is often only one place on earth we are likely to get that... it's original home; and sometimes, many times actually, to take them away is to doom them.

[Tyrone]

This is a complex issue and yes there have been many times of people pillaging wild populations of genetic material, but habitat destruction makes this pail into insignificance.

There is no question habitat destruction is bad, but I propose you are arguing at windmills where no one is disagreeing with you. The only question is 'is it relevant'? If we were having a discussion of, say, 'identity theft is good or bad?', and you added: 'Murder is much worse than identity theft; it makes identity theft pale in comparison'; would that be a reasonable argument in favor of identity theft?

So too, arguing that collection has "insignifigance" because you can point out something worse is also unreasonable. Collection stands on it's own as to whether it is always good for species, and habit destruction is separate, and only points out how important it is to get the collection issue right, and not make assumptions that could possibly make it worse.

Let me first say that I agree 100% that some species are saved by rare plant collectors, but I certainly think that isn't the only story out there, and the government's viewpoint is perhaps not as crazy as it may seem.

Tyrone, in your "case in point", could you be specific, which species was that? Would you say that was an example where collectors have succeeded in saving the species or they have failed? Didn't you say that particular species can't "ever be grown in cultivation"? So should I go get my piece to bring home or should I leave plant material on site for it to have a very slim, but still best possible chance of survival?

In my Pritchardia viscosa example there was a thread here on Palmtalk where a viscosa mother plant was from wild collected seeds (I hope not the ones I described above where one of the last plants was severely damaged by a collector), and this mother plant was positively identified later by a well respected palm grower who had spent time at the last stand of viscosa in the wild. However the seedlings from this palm were identified as not viscosa, but unknown. So we have a known mother, unknown progeny, and the mother was kept in a private collection, where we could perhaps expect other species of Pritchardia to occur near. Who was the father? What guarantee is there that these are not polluted hybrids? Yet they are being sold and widely distributed (right here on Palmtalk!) as pure Pritchardia viscosa. The purity of the species could soon be truly lost forever partly because of dilution by collectors. It may be true the other way too, but it really doesn't matter because we can't know for sure. A private collection in a non-natural environment is NO guarantee agianst hybrid pollution for many species.

How could we guarantee against hybrid pollution of Pritchardia seedlings? Put them in totally isolated valleys away from other related species, and with exact native weather & cultural conditions so they always come in to flower at the proper times. There is often only one place on earth we are likely to get that... it's original home; and sometimes, many times actually, to take them away is to doom them.

Firstly Tom, I'll like to say that I'm not just trying to be disagreeable, or even confrontational. Sometimes the written word can look a bit aggressive when in fact no aggression is intended. You obviously have your views and I have mine and they may not always agree. Government policy makers often read these type of threads and use them to make decisions. If they read that plant collectors are destroying natural stands of wild plants this could start to seriously impact all of us, including any conservation efforts that have serious merit.

When it comes to endangered plants and animals - conservation, pretty much all of man's activity comes into the mix, ie political, socio-economic, religious as pointed out by a post further back. At the end of the day, that is all controlled, or allowed to become out of control by governments. Whether we like it or not, they impact on what we do as humans. One of the side effects of all this is mass extinctions of the worlds biological diversity.

Now getting back to the point of this thread - Should governments support private collectors in some financial way?. My personal view is don't even bother going down that path. They are the ones who have allowed the mass extinctions to occur in the first place, and the complications that would occur with such a scheme would render it totally useless. I can see an issue straight away if such a scheme was to take effect. Many who are not interested in conservation efforts will fund expeditions to take what's left in an effort to receive the "government hand outs" and therefore put even more pressure on the wild populations.

My "case in point" was to illustrate the dual purposes and hypocrisy of some policy makers. On the one hand preventing people from enjoying in a small way the nature that is around them in the name of "conservation" and then demolishing that same natural setting in the name of "progress". I'm not an orchid person so I don't know the botanic name of the plant in question, but I will look for it. I think it was a native slipper orchid.

Now getting back to Pritchardia viscosa. As far as I know, those 3 plants on private property are it. In regards to the spike marks up the trunk, they were said to be inflicted possibly by a "botanist" or "seed collector". The article didn't say "severely" damaged. Botanists also remove leaves and inflorescences for pressings. Does this severely damage the plant? Did the plant suffer decline after the spike marks were inflicted or is it fine. Are those marks merely cosmetic?????? With so few in existence is it any wonder these few individuals have had such intense interest. Pritchardia are monoecious as far as I know, so an isolated plant should be able to produce seed true to species. Also NO conservation effort has any guarantee of success. If we didn't try to save these plants because the results were never going to be 100% all the time, there'd be no point in doing anything at all. In a wild section of priceless forest, bulldozers guarantee 100% total failure.

I think we have a lot to learn from Hyophorbe americaulis. Now virtually extinct, it long became extinct in the wild before anyone cared less.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

Thanks Tyrone. I too hope you take what I say in the most friendly & respectful way possible.

When you talked about the basic question of 'should governments support private collectors?', I'm glad that you pointed out that it would only encourage unscrupulous collectors and put even more pressure on the wild populations. In fact that's not even a hypothetical in the future; it happens right now. The USFW has even played down or reduced some threatened/endangered-type designations for the sole reason that the publicity would only encourage collectors in some cases.

Regarding viscosa, yes I see now they did not say "severely" damaged, sorry, but was it just merely cosmetic? No, the authors were obviously competent, they said the tree was damaged and vandalized, and the only young seedling was stolen. I think that is clear enough.

You mentioned that viscosa was monoecious, but you know of course that just because they can self-reproduce doesn't mean they always do. Unless you can guarantee there is no chance of hybrid pollution, then there is zero conservation. Personal collections with multiple species, or collections in a area that have similar species are often not the safe haven we assume. Think about it, many plants can only really be conserved in their own endemic home range. Please do look at the Palmtalk link above that shows where our members may have done serious damage to the species by possibly polluting, diluting, and confusing the DNA of the privately held viscosa population.

Another example of a major palm species with collection pressure is Pritchardia napaliensis. USFWS also says about napaliensis that it is "threatened by vandalism and over-collection. In 1993 near the Wailua River, the Hawaiian Department of Fish and Wildlife (DOFAW) constructed a fenced enclosure around 39 recently planted P. napaliensis individuals. Shortly after being planted, the fence was vandalized and the 39 plants were removed". You said that most collectors are conservationist at heart, and surely we all want to believe that about ourselves, but... consider the fresh napaliensis seed for sale at RPS right now, where many members here buy. RPS says it gets its seeds from "collectors", not growers. How many members here do you think have demanded proof that these seed don't come from the wild population, where seed are being collected, and the species is being harmed? We all want conservation, but when it comes right down to it, and the real wild collectors are hidden behind layers of responsible-looking sellers or wholesaler, we just want the darn seeds and don't ask too many questions.

[Tyrone]

No offense taken Tom. These types of discussions are actually what the forum was set up for I think. Even our late moderater Robert Lee Riffle used to get involved in them, because the IPS is set up to educate and encourage palm conservation.

You've brought up some good points. I think though it only takes one bad apple to spoil it for the rest of us. Those who stole and vandalised the enclosures obviously knew what they were, but were basically ignorant to the bigger picture or just didn't care. I think there are those who collect plants that are unusual purely for bragging rights. These people are unlikely to care about the future prospects for a species. Unfortunately you won't stop these sorts of people that easily.

I think Kew Gardens approach is a good one. Efforts must be made to conserve and increase the in situ wild population first. Secondly the ex situ (collector) population should be supported too. Kew did this with Tahina, and spread the seed widely, but also reintroduced many seedlings back into the wild. It still has a very shaky existence though. At least if the in situ population gets destroyed the ex situ may have some healthy individuals in it. In regards to the Pritchardia issue, is the insitu and ex situ population being catered for? It doesn't sound like it. A higher percentage of seed will germinate given care in an ex situ setting than seed left to fend for itself in an in situ setting. Just letting seed drop to the ground when there are rats and other introduced species around will not help the species at all. Maybe when there were thousands of them fruiting they could handle a bit of rat predation, but when you're down to 3 individuals each seed is precious and needs help to germinate and grow on.

There are many success stories that come from getting plants into cultivation though. Dypsis decaryi is a threatened species in the wild, yet just here in Perth there are hundreds of fruiting individuals that could supply the entire worlds need for seed. The same is true for Dypsis lutescens around the world. There are also quite a few P hillebrandii around my area that fruit profusely, yet in the wild it only exists on a small island away from rats and man. Who can forget Wodyetia which was pillaged beyond belief for it's seeds, but now has fruiting plants right through the world. Even the tracks up to those wild stands are grown over because of the zero demand for wild seed now.

I don't know where RPS gets its P napaliensis seeds from. RPS does buy seed from private growers. Often this seed germinates better than wild seed as it's been cared for better by the owner. Wild seed can often be picked from the ground, or has gone past it's prime, or has to be taken from the forest on the back of a donkey, and takes time to get to an airport in a third world country before it's shipped to Munich, and then on to the grower.

I know what you're saying about cross contamination between species even in a Botanic Garden. Botanic Gardens are no match for the real thing. Hopefully in the future we'll still have both, but to be honest, I doubt it.

Best regards

Tyrone

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

What I'd like to see is the actual landholders and not the

goverments benifit from seed or plants of any sort, to

an extent it is happening in some places but I know for a

fact (A Location I Don't want to name)

that once the locals have collected seed they still need to

get a permit which costs them and then if they wanted to send

seed out they need to have a Licence,and that costs them heaps.

It's just wrong how the locals get treated world wide

see why we end up paying heaps for seed esp of some 'sp'.

Cheers Mikey

[Zayin]

Do you guys know if Pritchardia Viscosa in it's true form is in cultivation anywhere? It kills me to hear of anything going extinct. I looked at the arkive photos of P Viscosa and there were a bunch of seeds on the tree that was photographed. I'm thinking that tree might be in cultivation.

I'd hate to see the insitu population bite the dust, but in my opinion, the salvation of the species is more important than the four individuals on that little back road in Kauai. While I agree wholeheartedly, and I'm willing to particiapate in any "save the pritchardia" marches, that the natural habitat should be preserved, if the whole island of Kauai was wiped clean from a tidal wave or meteorite or alien blast or whatever, it would be really nice to have a repository of true form palms to repopulate the island with.

As it happens some palms don't have or possibly never have had a natural habitat unless you call someone's garden a natural habitat when it comes to a palm such as Trachycarpus Wagnerianus or Parajubaea Cocoides etc.

okay im rambling. back to my original question.

Anyone growing true form of Pritchardia Viscosa or ever seen them in a Botanical Garden anywhere?

[Tom Hulse]

Yes Jody, it is in cultivation, although not widely. That doesn't necessarily mean it's conserved or safe though, for the reasons I mentioned above.

You mentioned an either/or, like either the species could be saved, OR the 4-plant native population be saved. This is the false premise that is at the heart of the problem. This is the false premise that collectors use to justify stealing seeds and plants, but it's just not true. If you could ship seed halfway around the world and delicately maintain artificial growing conditions in a non-ideal, non-native location, then certainly you could have just kicked some dirt aside, dropped the seed, and kicked dirt back over it. Responsible people, representing the government and other major institutions are already doing this and much, much more, but collectors are thwarting them by stealing seed and digging up young plants.

Mikey you described the way locals have to pay fees & get licenses as just wrong... why? Isn't that limiting access and protecting rare species? Do you think that landholders are somehow more scrupulous and will pass up profit to sell seeds which really needed to be left alone or planted on-site? Also if there were no permit requirements, then couldn't anyone just take the seeds at will, and wouldn't it make it easier for greedy collectors to ship these endangered seeds and plants out?

I don't know where RPS gets its P napaliensis seeds from.

Tyrone I don't know either, that's the point. RPS does have a small statement on it's home page about cultivated seed not being hybrid, but don't confuse that to mean they are saying all, or even most, of their seed has been cultivated. They're wild seed collectors and they support wild seed collectors. I only bring this out to make the point that you, I, and nearly everyone here, even though we all have grandiose ideas about conservation & preservation, are at our core still imperfect, and still a threat to species like Pritchardia nepaliensis when we support RPS (and nearly every other palm seed seller) by buying anything from them.

Let me take this opportunity to say that I especially am not proud of everything I've done so that you don't think I trying to be too holier-than-thou. I'm not proud of what I've bought, of seed I've picked up for personal use... I have a bit of a guilty conscience, and I'd bet many of the top posters on this site may too.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[Tyrone]

Tom, in my case I can honestly say I've done nothing worth regretting when it comes to attaining palm species. RPS does sell seeds from cultivation. Most seeds that fall in the wild do not germinate or lack the dispersal mechanisms to disperse them, as in a lot of cases the dispersers are long extinct. The worlds forests are basically damaged systems now. They don't work the way they used too. However what little is left is still worth protecting. Common sense should be used by anyone attaining propagation material. If we all used common sense there'd be no need for laws (CITES etc), because we'd all be operating under internal principles. However the reality is people are greedy. Digging up seedlings from the wild is just stupidly reckless especially if seed is available.

I would like to know what governments ARE actually doing for conservation. Forgive me for being a cynic but I see very little attention to conservation issues by any government. The UN Biospheres in Madagascar as far as I know have all been abandoned.

I wonder if Hyophorbe americaulis would be down to one individual if RPS and other seed companies were around in the 1970's. I wonder if H americaulis would not be totally extinct already if it wasn't for the Botanic Garden in Mauritius. The wild is not a safe haven for anything anymore.

Best regards

Tyrone

[edbrown_III]

Theres one default in the logic of private individuals ---they die and it leaves the property to heirs.

4 0r 5 siblings typically have different ideas of what they want to do with an estate. It really has to be put in a foundation or a trust --- Huntington in Ca Montgomery in Fl would nt be what they are if this hadnt happened.

Best regards

Ed

[Tom Hulse]

RPS does sell seeds from cultivation.

True statement, but I already agreed they sell some cultivated seed. They buy from "collectors in often very poor countries" per their website. That's not collectors as in some rich guy with a palm collection... in that context it means collectors who gather wild seed. The same type that collect most of the world's palm seed that are sold. The same type that damaged one of the last 3 wild P. viscosas with spikes to get at the seeds.

I wonder if Hyophorbe americaulis would be down to one individual if RPS and other seed companies were around in the 1970's.

I don't think so because the real cause of it's demise was not apathy or a lack of interest in conserving it, rather it was misidentified with another more common palm up until about 1990. By the time they realized it was the last one it was just about too late.

I would like to know what governments ARE actually doing for conservation.

Obviously can't do every plant, but here at least are what governments and major institutions are doing for all the species mentioned in this thread:

- Hyophorbe amaricaulis - the Mauritian Ministry of Agriculture, working with Kew Gardens in the UK, is leading efforts to propagate it through tissue culture and through standard pollination by developing techniques to keep the pollen viable while refrigerated until the female parts mature.

- Carpoxylon macrospermum - starting with a $50,000.00 grant from the US government, The Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific has saved this species through collection, propagation, & distribution worldwide. Note that they are a major institution, and later recieved institutional support from the Vanuatu & US governments... their income from seed sales goes back towards maintaining & bolstering the wild population.

- Chambeyronia macrocarpa, red leaf - not endangered

- Pritchardia viscosa - The USFWS, and arm of the US government, developed and is executing a rescue plan. The state does currently own the land that the last 3 plants are on. They have also decided not to list critical habitat because it would increase the threat of vandalism from collectors.

- Pritchardia nepaliensis - USFWS plan & implementation here. Basically the same plan, recovery plan addendum here. Species is down to five occurrences with 155 individuals in the wild. "The species is also threatened by vandalism and over-collection. In 1993, near the Wailua River, the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW) constructed a fenced enclosure around 39 recently planted P. napaliensis individuals. Shortly after planting, the fence was vandalized and the 39 plants were removed" (from here).

- Caledenia huegelii - I believe this is the endangered Australian orchid you brought up that was in competition with the bus station. Very rare type of symbiotic macrorhiza make this one extremely difficult to propagate like you mentioned. Species down to 1614 plants at 33 locations. Detailed government recovery plan & actions here. Final negotiations moved the station far enough that 20 of the 22 plants at the site were preserved and the remaining 2 were moved. Plants at that site would not have even been found if not for the environmental impact study required by the government.

- Chamaedorea ernesti-augusti - Vulnerable, not threatened or endangered. Belize, Mexico, & Guatemala control the harvest tightly and have laws punishable by prison time for illegal collection. Poaching/theft is common & heavy due to poverty, but the laws are being enforced. The government of Belize has set aside nature preserves equivilent to IUCN category I and any harvesting or extracting of the nature reserves' resources is strictly illegal. All 3 countries are implementing extensive plans that include the collectors, processors, wholesalers, & exporters to influence actual collection practices, including partnerships with many local conservation & labor organizations. Three major labeling bodies (The Forest Stewardship Council, Fairtrade Labeling Organiztions International, and International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements) have certification programs so that consumers (churches are the major buyers) can veryify their palm leaves were harvested sustainably. They currently certify about a quarter of the overall market and climbing.

- Wodyetia bifurcata - protected by the Queensland government's Nature Conservation Act of 1992. As you said, collectors were the cause of the population decline, not it's savior.

- Dypsis decaryi - again, collectors are the problem in the first place. Cites, speaking about the native plants outside Andohahela National Park, says: "The large-scale harvesting by collectors of seeds for export could lead to the absence of natural regeneration outside the park, which, in the long term, would constitute a serious threat for the species". Almost all of the wild seed has been taken by collectors in recent years. The Madagascaran government did move to have Cites eliminate their restricted listing for decaryi seed produced ex situ. The government has also recently given the the national parks service the power to enforce environmental laws, and is engaging in widespread conservation efforts that go all the way down to basic poverty alleviation (poverty drives much of the misuse of resources), sustainable forestry, sustainable agriculture, and lots more; also they're using novel methods of habitat conservation funding, including promoting ecotourism.

- Dypsis lutescens - Dransfield & Beentje (1995) list this one as not threatened in it's wild habitat. It was Cites restricted in the (overzealous) 70's (but seeds, pollen, & TC were exempt), but delisted in '87.

You asked, lol. I think I got everyone in the thread (whew!). The point is that every threatened species we mentioned has been extensively protected by governments & major institutions.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Tom Hulse

[Tyrone]

While not trying to make this thread one long winded conversation I would like to say that in the case of H americaulis, the very reason for it's misidentification was apathy. No one bothered to look hard enough at the situation. H vaughnii which is also on the verge of extinction, only exists in cultivation in collectors gardens in Mauritius. It's long since extinct in the wild due to habitat destruction. H indica is virtually gone from the wild for the same reasons. Governments may be doing something now, but it's probably too late.

Carpoxylon is a success story which encompasses the in situ and ex situ methods for conservation I mentioned earlier that Kew used with Tahina.

Pritchardia viscosa-well we've talked a lot about it. I'm glad the state owns the spot now. What are the plans for ex situ seed distribution?

Pritchardia napaliensis- the vandalism and theft is truly disgusting. But why paint all collectors as stooping to that level? Why pull RPS into this when you don't know what their source is? You are taking the "guilty until proved innocent" approach.

The Bus Station vs Orchid situation was only resolved after public protest. They would have wiped them out if it wasn't such a hot topic. They're still surrounded by a large carpark and lots of human activity. They may very well go the same way as the Albany Pitcher Plant, which you can't find anywhere any more.

C ernesti-augustii, don't really know the situation, but I would think there status would be closer to critical than vulnerable in the wild. Suggest Churches get more authentic and farm Phoenix dactylifera, or at least Phoenix roebellini.

With the Wodyetia pillaging they were not merely taking seed. That wouldn't have been too much of an issue. They were felling trees for seed by chainsaw. Terrible. The Queensland Government banned the export of seed etc, but provided no controlled legal export alternative, that would have treated the trees as a manageable valuable resource. Also the Australian Federal Government did nothing. While illegal in Queensland, you could get the seed out of the state into the Northern Territory for example, and nothing could be done. Federal laws could have stopped that in it's tracks theoretically, in the same way that Western Australia has border quarantine stations. While that is all old history now, the demand for wild seed doesn't exist any more. The wild populations are safe. If the Australian Government had used the Kew gardens In situ/Ex situ approach like they did with Tahina, and had taken more of an active interest in the species, instead of just making a blanket ban, all of that mess could have been avoided. They probably would have made a profit from the exercise too.

D decaryi, I don't know why anyone would want wild seed of this species anymore or D lutescens. That these are still being wild collected is baffling. Cultivated plants should now supply the world demand, and the wild ones should be left alone IMO.

I'm going to leave this topic alone now. I've bored everyone enough.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

in the case of H americaulis, the very reason for it's misidentification was apathy. No one bothered to look hard enough at the situation.

I wonder if we are loosing sight of what the discussion is about? You're saying collectors, if they didn't have government bans on shipping & harvesting, would have saved this species? RPS, if around, would have saved this species? Really? People are looking hard all over the globe, but nobody is perfect. If "governments" didn't look hard enough, then neither did collectors or seed sellers. You can't know what you don't know. There was no mistake by government that prevented collectors from finding this palm.

With Carpoxylon, don't forget that governments are mainly responsible for saving this palm.

Bus-station orchid, you are twisting the facts a little. No they would not have wiped them out without public outrage. They were only found because of government safegaurds in environmental study requirements for development. I think you don't fathom nearly the extent to which your government is active in species protection. Try reading that Caledenia huegelii link in my last post. It's long and detailed, but it will give you a tiny glimpse into how much effort is really being expended by the government there.

Regarding Wodyetia, again it appears we are forgetting what our discussion is about. Collectors were the CAUSE of the shortage! That's the end of the story. But additionally, we can play armchair quarterback and say 'the government could have done this differently...', but the fact is that species is saved, and whatever their actions were, they did not fail.

Chamaedorea ernesti-augusti: it's best not to just repeat rumors without really looking for yourself. You can't get proof any more detailed than this.

I hope you don't quit the thread, you're the only one left reading my blather.

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Whose 'Bus Station Orchid......

[Lowey]

in the case of H americaulis, the very reason for it's misidentification was apathy. No one bothered to look hard enough at the situation.

I wonder if we are loosing sight of what the discussion is about? You're saying collectors, if they didn't have government bans on shipping & harvesting, would have saved this species? RPS, if around, would have saved this species? Really? People are looking hard all over the globe, but nobody is perfect. If "governments" didn't look hard enough, then neither did collectors or seed sellers. You can't know what you don't know. There was no mistake by government that prevented collectors from finding this palm.

With Carpoxylon, don't forget that governments are mainly responsible for saving this palm.

Bus-station orchid, you are twisting the facts a little. No they would not have wiped them out without public outrage. They were only found because of government safegaurds in environmental study requirements for development. I think you don't fathom nearly the extent to which your government is active in species protection. Try reading that Caledenia huegelii link in my last post. It's long and detailed, but it will give you a tiny glimpse into how much effort is really being expended by the government there.

Regarding Wodyetia, again it appears we are forgetting what our discussion is about. Collectors were the CAUSE of the shortage! That's the end of the story. But additionally, we can play armchair quarterback and say 'the government could have done this differently...', but the fact is that species is saved, and whatever their actions were, they did not fail.

Chamaedorea ernesti-augusti: it's best not to just repeat rumors without really looking for yourself. You can't get proof any more detailed than this.

I hope you don't quit the thread, you're the only one left reading my blather.

I can not comment on the others, but your observations on Wodyetia are too simplistic, the shortage of seed was originally based on a relatively small wild population, in comparison to World wide demand, the Governments both State and Federal in Australia had ample opportunity to prevent collectors entering this area and chose to ignore the problem initially, once the demand was realised by National Parks Rangers the Governments could have prevented collection more successfully and listened to their own people and set up a viable, sustainable harvesting system run by them or licensed contractors.

The prohibition of collection and very little resources allocated to enforce such a prohibition, allowed unscrupulous collectors to destroy many adult trees for their seed.

The Governments in Australia only paid any attention when it became clear that some people were making lots of money from the sale of seed and they were not getting a cut, either in royalties or taxes.

In recent years governments have learned that controlling the sale of protected plants and animals is preferable to prohibition, but they are still too slow to react in some cases.

I think we have gotten away from the original idea of this thread and would just add that I have been collecting and growing palms for many years and my only intent when I started was to grow endangered species and if I managed to get them to the seeding stage I would distribute seed to other people who had a similar interest, and some incentives to do this would have been nice but were not essential.

[Tom Hulse]

Sorry MH. I was replying to Tyrone, referring to Caledenia huegelii that I talked about a few posts ago that was found where they wanted to put a bus station.

Lowey,

the shortage of seed was originally based on a relatively small wild population, in comparison to World wide demand... and set up a viable, sustainable harvesting system run by them or licensed contractors

It's almost like you're assuming every critically endangered species is a crop to be managed, and "demand" should be satisfied. As if it was the government's responsibility to fill worldwide "demand" for seed. No, please my friend, lol, that is what this whole thread is about. We're discussing whether we should give the collectors free reign, no restrictions, so that they can "save" species, or if the normal government approach to restricting seed trade is better. If a plant is critically endangered we have to just keep our darn grubby paws off of it until they can save it in situ, or at least rely on government & institutional efforts to save it ex situ if it is out of habitat. 50% or 80% or 90% of the seed kept in situ (with some kind of "harvest" for collectors) is not the goal. No, we need 100%, all of it, kept to try and preserve the in situ population.

I did not oversimplify Wodyetia. It is just a plain fact, greedy collectors caused the Wodyetia endangerment. When you, with hindsight, say that the government could have done this or that to restrict collection... well that is the same side I'm on: restrict the collectors & save the species.

If we have the resources to travel to the site, and our intention is really to save the species, and not to just have a rare palm we covet, then we can certainly plant those seeds we were going to steal. Remember the sentiment in the very first post of this thread (I've had it too): "Wouldn’t this be a nice incentive for people to do the world a favor and plant more rare and threatened species?"

That is the kind of thinking that led to the demand that nearly caused the demise of Wodyetia.

The Governments in Australia only paid any attention when it became clear that some people were making lots of money from the sale of seed and they were not getting a cut, either in royalties or taxes.

Rubbish. Show me proof. I want to be more polite about it, I am sorry, but you can't just make wild accusations based soley on how your own cynical, radical world views tells you it "probably" happened. Please, please read the link I posted above that details the conservation efforts for the orchid we discussed, Caledenia huegelii, in Queensland. It paints a far, far differnt picture of a government who is trying hard, with honorable intent, and is doing a pretty decent job lately.

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

This is turn out to be good reading, not that I agree with everything

said but carry on Guys........

[Steve the palmreader]

Lets keep the govts. palms off our palms:drool:

[Tyrone]

OK. I'm back.

Bruce I agree with this statement. "I have been collecting and growing palms for many years and my only intent when I started was to grow endangered species and if I managed to get them to the seeding stage I would distribute seed to other people who had a similar interest, and some incentives to do this would have been nice but were not essential." This is my intention too.

This topic has gotten really complex, like the actual problem of mass extinctions, conservation efforts and trouble in the Middle East for the last 1000 years.

Tom, rather than focusing on what we disagree on, I will quickly focus on what we agree on. Basically we do care what happens to endangered species. Something has to be done. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away. I think we agree on those few things and that's a good thing.

Where we differ is you think that ALL collectors of rare species are detrimental to those species. I think that well managed collecting is actually good for a species continued existence. We both agree that there have been many cases of unscrupulous collectors, but I don't believe that all collectors are unscrupulous. You believe that Governments should be the only ones permitted to work on conservation issues (ie propagate rare species), whereas I believe that while there have been some success stories, governments in the main mess things up, even though I feel that at the end of the day they hold the full responsibility for mass extinctions. They have the power but don't often utilise it. I stand by what I said about the Wodyetia issue and Bruce was a little bit closer to the action in Innisfail, so I'd believe him. The Wodyetia issue was a political embarrassment. Where the Wodyetia situation was probably not a good example was in the fact that it was in such an inaccessible area, that it is unlikely to come under any form of urban development for a very very long time. But if you look at areas on the east coast of Madagascar where rainforest is being destroyed all the time, leaving a species in situ without any ex situ propagation program is like sitting on the railway tracks and waiting for train to come along. Wodyetia wasn't on the train tracks and still isn't. It's one of the lucky ones. Virtually all Madagascan species as are species in many other parts of the world (eg Indonesia) are on borrowed time from deforestation, mining, and urbanisation.

In the case of the now famous Bus Station Orchid, don't let the government documents fool you. This same government knocked down the last two remaining old growth Tuart trees in Capel. When they were legally challenged, these two trees were called the last piece of old growth "Tuart forest" in the world by those who didn't want them felled. This same government that you are singing praises for said that two trees does not constitute a "forest" and cut them down. But don't pick a wild flower from that area. They'll fine you for destroying the natural environment. Double standards, that's what I'm talking about. Governments are good at political "risk management", hence the documents you read singing there praises. Virtually all old growth forests in WA are gone. They deliberately leave corridors of what look like decent forest along the roads in the SW of Oz, but go a few hundred metres in past these corridors and you'll see a different story. The real one. Don't even get me started on Blue Gum plantations run by the Japanese in SW Oz.

Anyway getting back to the point of this discussion, I believe collectors do have a useful role in conservation of the species. I keep going back to Kew Gardens approach with Tahina being a really good approach. They looked at the in situ and the ex situ situation. They did not leave collectors out of their considerations. Kew, a well respected conservation body, obviously thought that collectors were part of the conservation solution and so do I.

I'm done now.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

Tyrone you know you can't stay away.

I do agree on the importance of protecting endangered species, but for me, it's not good enough just knowing that the only remaining plants in the world are growing in some collector's pot on the other side of the world with possibly other related species nearby that could pollute their DNA, and knowing that they are not contributing to building up the ecosystem in their last remaining habitat. I also do not think ALL collectors are detrimental to palm species. A better word is ENOUGH.

Enough wild-seed collectors are detrimental that it makes government regulations/restrictions necessary & helpful to the species overall.

I also do not believe governments should be the only ones to conserve & propagate rare species. I have repeatedly included "major institutions". The main point is that it can not be the one lone rogue out there picking seed with great intentions of conservation, but not working with the big-picture conservation efforts. These one-off guys, even if noble, tend to rush straight to ex situ conservation without considering in situ first, which is much more important. They hinder the in situ efforts that are being done by the pros (e.g. Pritchardias). They don't realize that those same seeds they're carting off would have been better planted right in that neighborhood where they were collected.

Regarding Wodyetia, I am little flabbergasted you will not admit that wild seed collectors CAUSED it's endangerment. The facts are so plain that if you won't admit that, then I might have to wonder if we are having an honest discussion. I can however also agree that what Bruce is saying is true about 'the governments could have done more', 'it was an embarrassment for them', etc. My point is that you two don't realize what you are really saying there, wake up, lol! When you say that the government could have done more, you are making my case for me... more government regulation/restrictions.

Regarding the bus station orchids, no I didn't let government documents fool me (have you read them? That is standard procedure now for endangered species in your area), but perhaps you are confused by what is an endangered plant. Those 2 individual tuarts you mentioned were not endangered and the government's decision was reasonable. Their saviors were stretching the truth a little there about an old-growth forest.

Regarding Tahina & Kew Gardens, I like that example too. Be careful though about multiple meanings of the word "collectors". The government regulations I am espousing affects wild-seed collectors by restrictions on taking wild seed and on shipping/transport, but they do not affect someone who likes to grow a lot of palms in their own garden, and may also be called a "collector" with a different meaning. So in the Tahina example, zero seed collectors were allowed to share in the bounty. An amount was set aside to be distributed to hobbiests, but only after botanical gardens went first, and only under the tightly controlled oversight of a major institution (Kew).

[Toby]

Since RPS was mentioned several times in this thread, I feel I should chip in my two cents worth here.

I am sick and tired of hearing of "unscrupulous collectors", especially in connection with seeds. While I agree that removing plants from the wild is unscrupulous indeed, seeds are a whole different story. Tom, you would be surprised how few seeds it takes to fill worldwide demand. In nearly all cases that I know it is just a few hundred seeds that are sufficient to satisfy the avid collectors. Often, the one-time harvest from a single tree is more than enough. It is the mass market that sees quantities in the hundreds of thousands, but these are, without exception, seeds of species that are common either in cultivation or in the wild, or both.

I agree that, because of the issue of hybridization, for many species of palms, amateur cultivation does not serve as a good tool for their conservation, but there are plenty of examples where hybridization is not an issue and there are many enthusiasts that hand-pollinate or bag inflorescences to produce pure seeds. Cultivated plants in private gardens also can often supply all the seeds that are ever needed for cultivation, even for nursery production on a larger scale. Many of the palms of New Caledonia are great examples for this and in a lot of species that were hard to get just 20 years ago, such as Kentiopsis oliviformis, several Burretiokentia or Chambeyronia there is now a plentiful supply from cultivated sources.

The same is true for the Hawaiian Pritchardia, where accessing wild seed sources is in fact almost impossible due to their difficult to access locations. I think there is no disagreement about the causes of Pritchardia endangerment in Hawaii, A) deforestation B ) feral pigs and C) rats, and I find it pretty absurd that now that the levels of some species have dropped to a critical point, palm enthusiasts get part of the blame. I haven't heard of any major improvements in the status of any of the Hawaiian Pritchardia, despite decades of government action. Instead of curtailing the cultivation of these plants via the Endangered Species Act, their wide cultivation should be encouraged, at least as long as feral pigs and rats prevent any meaningful regeneration.

Government action on endangered species can be a good thing, but it is often misguided by seeing plant collectors as a main threat, instead of appreciating the real causes that brought a species to the brink in the first place and seeking advice and support from plant collectors in a conservation effort. Even though not a palm, Wollemia is a good example that a different approach is possible, and Tahina as well as Howea is, too, to repeat just some prominent examples.

A few words on CITES. For nearly all of the plants listed here, their listing in the appendices has brought no improvement to their status in the wild because the convention is focused on trade alone, not habitat protection. Instead it has created a huge bureaucracy that wastes enormous resources regulating and enforcing the trade of artificially propagated plants, resources that would be more wisely spent in habitat protection and ex-situ cultivation for further seed production. A plant that is endangered in habitat can easily be made common in cultivation. Then, not even the most unscrupulous people would go to the trouble of digging up wild specimens. Why dig something with great risk and effort if you can buy it for a few bucks at a specialist nursery? Makes sense to me and it has been proven this works.

Tom, if you actually know of any palm that has become endangered due to the efforts of plant collectors, I would really be interested to hear of it. I can't think of any.

Finally a word on RPS. I go to great pains to make sure that people that pick seeds for us from wild sources do this in a way that it will not harm the plants collected from, or their surroundings. For most of these collectors, this goes without mentioning as the plants they are collecting from and the forest around it is a valuable source of income that they will protect from harm. The vast majority of people who do this collecting are also plant enthusiasts and their motives are sustainability and to see plants brought into cultivation, not exterminate them or just make a quick buck. Government agencies and nature conservancies do not have a monopoly on saving plants from extinction. In the long term, plants are saved because people have an interest in them, because they provide an income or they just simply enjoy them.

Best, TOBY

PS: Tom, a few more comments to your last post: The "lone, rogue guy" often has invaluable knowledge and perhaps would like to work with institutions and government agencies but is usually ignored, more often threatened with conservation laws but very rarely invited to work along.

In-situ and ex-situ conservation do not exclude each other. In-situ conservation is usually not limited by the amount of seeds available but by the lack of funding. Plant enthusiast could help out here!

Pritchardias, again, if you don't get rid of the pigs and rats, any in-situ conservation effort will be futile in the end.

Wodyetia could have used more government cooperation with collectors/growers, how about that for a change.

[Toby]

Oh, and by the way Tom, the Tahina discovery, distribution and conservation was a success due to the personal efforts and dedication of plant enthusiasts and botanists, Kew as an organization was only involved in a secondary way.

Best, TOBY

[Tyrone]

Tom, I'll keep it brief. I never said that seed collectors did not endanger Wodyetia. What they did was terrible and they knew it. Where the plants were situated was in a place where the usual species extinguishers except maybe mining would never have touched them. The government ignored the issue for too long, then got involved in a knee jerk reaction after the damage had been done, by blanket banning the export of seed. In that way they failed because they are responsible for what happens in their area of jurisdiction. They run the judicial system remember. They wanted the problem to go away, but it didn't. Did the QLD government care about Wodyetia? I doubt it. But once the embarrasing situation hit the papers and 60 minutes they had to be seen to do something. The whole situation could have been done much better involving the ex situ plantings. QLD and Australia had many Botanic Gardens that could have become involved from the out set. The local palm community were lobbying the government to improve the situation by protecting the remaining trees and getting involved in growing plants for reintroduction back into the wild. They were ignored.

Again I'll reiterate and say that private collectors, no matter how small or how big CAN be a good thing for conservation.

Best regards

Tyrone

[Tom Hulse]

Toby, thank you for joining the discussion. And thank you verifying that you do in fact buy from wild seed collectors, who, as your website says, are in "very poor countries".

Perhaps you could help me by clarifying exactly what it is you wish for. Abolish CITES, no international or local restrictions on shipping or harvesting seed, a free-for-all... or what, exactly?

I was curious a while ago whether you did much verifying that the seed you received was harvested in a sustainable way, especially the rare & endangered ones. I know in the industry in general, for all rare plants, there is very little verifying. It is almost impossible to do halfway around the globe when dealing with a poor person who needs to feed & clothe his family. You can't travel to every, or even most of the sites. Well you certainly answered my question when you said:

For most of these collectors, this goes without mentioning as the plants they are collecting from and the forest around it is a valuable source of income that they will protect from harm.

I am sorry to say it like this Toby, but this is pure fiction. That's just not how the world works when there is money growing on trees. This Polyannish dream of utopia is what I've heard other plant brokers repeat in weak attempt to convince themselves their hands are not dirty. Is this utopia how it worked for Wodyetia when the collectors were using chain saws to get seeds to sell internationaly to brokers?

When you said I would be suprised at how few seeds it takes to fill worldwide demand, how many did it take to fill demand for Wodyetia? One tree's worth? Two, three?

On the question of hybrid DNA pollution for for plants in private collections, you mentioned there were "plenty" of instances of hobbiests bagging and hand pollinating. Do you wish to address the example I mentioned of Pritchardia viscosa, where we could very well loose the wild population (3 left and in danger from collectors) and what would be left is a confusing mush of pure parent plants plus possibly many polluted hybrids floating around tagged as pure (details above)? Do you acknowlege that even if a plant is "saved" in cultivation that it is still an important type of failure if we loose it in the wild?

When you mentioned the ABC threats to Pritchardia, you only mentioned what originally caused the threat. You left out one that is clearly mentioned in the environmental studies as also currently threatening Pritchardia: collectors. For instance Pritchardia napaliensis, where collectors removed 20% of the wild population of plants (39 of 192), plus seeds. Or Prichardia viscosa, where 25% of the wild population (1 of 4) was removed, plus seeds, by collectors and one of the remaining 3 damaged to get at the seeds.

You asked me for a single example of "any palm that has become endangered due to the efforts of plant collectors". I don't understand how you could even ask that after all we have talked about Wodyetia in this thread. Was it the government who picked the seeds? Was it the government who cut down trees with chainsaws? Can't you see the circular, self-supporting logic of blaming the government because they could have done more? You are a supporter of collectors. Collectors picked the seed. Collectors cut the trees. You're saying government should have rescued us from ourself, therefore it's their fault! Wodyetia's endangerment was caused soley by the hands of seed collectors to fill the demand of plant collectors around the world. Even if government had a responsibility to stop them and failed miserably, they still didn't cause the endangerment.

Oh, and by the way Tom, the Tahina discovery, distribution and conservation was a success due to the personal efforts and dedication of plant enthusiasts and botanists, Kew as an organization was only involved in a secondary way.

Toby I know you received some of the seeds to sell, but Kew says different about who was involved: "Around 1000 grape-sized seeds, harvested by local villagers in collaboration with the Kew team, arrived at the Millennium Seed Bank earlier this week." That also means Kew controlled the seed & decided where they went. More details here. Also a list here of the dozen botanical institutions that Kew decided to distribute the seeds to first. And this link details Kew's early involvement in identification, including DNA analysis.

Also at the last link it mentions that the exact location in Madagascar is being kept secret. Why do you think that is? This answers almost every question in the thread.

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Or Prichardia viscosa, where 25% of the wild population (1 of 4) was removed, plus seeds, by collectors and one of the remaining 3 damaged to get at the seeds.

Just as I'm reading.... Tom just to clear this one up, "it is not known

how damage was done" don't forget it also said Botanist or collector.

Oh I use to supply bulk seed esp that of the foxy, and many other

'sp' including Cycads.. so will add more later

Cheers for now ,Mikey

Oh I'm not a chainsaw user

and I was a Licenced collector

Edited December 1, 2010 by calyptrocalyx&licuala freck